He indicated there was little appetite within the government to amend the threshold,saying he was “very confident” the bill had set down the appropriate settings for public hearings.

The committee – comprised of six government members,four Coalition members,and two crossbenchers – made six recommendations such as extending protections for the non-disclosure of identities of journalists’ sources and strengthening the remit of the NACC Inspector’s oversight function.

The anti-corruption bill establishes the office of an independent commissioner and up to three deputy commissioners who will have powers to investigate serious or systemic corrupt conduct in the federal public sector. This includes conduct by ministers,MPs,political staffers,government contractors,public servants and statutory officeholders.

Section 73 of the bill contains a presumption that hearings be held in private unless the commissioner is satisfied there are “exceptional circumstances” justifying a public hearing and it is in the public interest to do so.

Greens Senator David Shoebridge also objected to the committee’s decision not to recommend changing the default requirement for private hearings.

“By keeping the exceptional circumstances test we know there’ll be far less scrutiny,not just of the federal government,not just of federal resources,but also of the NACC itself,” Shoebridge said.

Independent MPs Zali Steggall and Sophie Scamps have previously called for “exceptional circumstances” to be removed from the bill.

The Centre for Public Integrity,a non-profit group set up by former judges,stepped up its call for a more open approach to hearings by citingsubmissions to the parliamentary inquiry from state anti-corruption commissions that argued against the “exceptional circumstances” provision.

Former NSW Supreme Court judge Anthony Whealy,KC,the group’s chair,said its research also shows “public hearings are crucial to investigating corruption”.

Whealy noted the Victorian Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission was the only state agency with the “exceptional circumstances” test andit had made a submission to the parliamentary inquiry opposing its use in the federal bill.

In evidence to the committee,IBAC commissioner Robert Redlich warned against adopting its threshold for public hearings,which the federal bill is modelled on,saying it had placed an “artificial limit” on the state agency.

Similarly,NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption chief John Hatzistergosgave evidence in support of public hearings,telling the inquiry he disagreed with the view that it was appropriate to “make findings against people – serious findings – in private”.

Griffith University professor AJ Brown,a board member of Transparency International Australia,also stressed the importance of open hearings and said a potential compromise would be to clarify the definition of an exceptional circumstance in the law before it is passed.

“The issue is really making sure that the discretion to hold public hearings is not something that gets either judicially interfered with or subjected to a political backlash down the track,” he said.

“That’s important when,in fact,the commission does go ahead and hold a public hearing that happens to cause particular people to feel uncomfortable.”

Cut through the noise of federal politics with news,views and expert analysis from Jacqueline Maley. Subscribers can sign up to our weeklyInside Politics newsletter here.